Posted: Mar 13, 2020 11:10 pm
by Thomas Eshuis
Nevets wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:You still don't understand how the burden of proof works or that wikipedia pages can be edited by anyone at any time. Thats what makes it unreliable, not how much of it is accurate.

More importantly, as has been repeatedly to you:

Thomas Eshuis wrote: 1. 9,9 out of 10 times the quotes you post don't state what you claim they do, more often the opposite in fact.
1. 9,9 out of 10 times the quotes you post don't state what you claim they do, more often the opposite in fact.


In a court of law you would need to provide "proof" that 9.9 of everything that i post does not say, what i say it does. Rather than simply "claiming that".. Show me the research method you used, to calculate that 99% of my opinion is based upon misunderstanding what the wikipedia article says.

I've pointed this out to you with every single post you made, in at least two threads. :naughty:


Thomas Eshuis wrote: 2. You jump to conclusions that are not in the least warranted by the wiki articles you quote.


Rather than simply "saying" i jump to conclusion that are not in the least warranted by the wiki articles i quote, you would need to show examples. And if you wish to drop my accuracy percentage down, you would also require providing more than one example, to show that this is a consistant pattern

Again I've done this repeatedly when it occured. :coffee: